<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">RMB</blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm saying the word means what it literally translates to. As I said<br>
above in reply to RnCL, I do not see another definition being offered<br>
that is relevent. Dragging in tzeni'us in terms of ervah aside, we all<br>
agree (I beliefe) that's not the whole picture -- so what's the other<br>
piece in yours?<br></blockquote></div>I am quite confused and puzzled (and reminded of Humpty Dumpty Linguistics - a word means what I want it to mean...)). The word zniut translates to privacy. However, it has been used for millenia, and no understood the word zniut to mean a denigration and a problem with assuming public roles. To suggest that that is the simple pshat, when no one else has ever understood it in those terms, is problematic.<br>
<br>There is another definition of zniut and hatznea lechet - which was actually cited by RMB - namely, RYBS;s discusion of it, as cited by RHS in Nefesh Harav. In that discussion - the issue is on the importance of a public personae (he uses his father as an example, but talks about the issue of biography in general) maintaining their private dimension - one has to maintain tzniut and hatznea lechet even while being in the public eye - which seems a very clear statement that being in the public eye does not intrinsically violate zniut........- being in the public eye or a public role is not a violation of tzniut, but one has to be careful it doesn't lead to such a violation.<br>
<br>This is, of course, a very late source for a very ancient term - but it fits much better with what is normally understood, and does not have all the problems that RCL (and others) see. RMB's approach here seems far more apodictic than usual - but suggesting something is obvious and does not need a source is a problematic argument. ( I remember in my algebraic number theory class spending 3 classes tryiing to prove a statement that the text said was obvious, and in the end was wrong....)<br>
<br>Again, does RMB have any source other than RHS that uses tzniut in the sense that he thinks is so obvious? How does he understand RYBS?<br>Meir Shinnar<br>